Buellâ€™s book tells us a great deal about American fiction. What it also tells us, in its every line, is much of what is wrong with academic criticism. We can start with the language…. Here is a fair sample of Buellâ€™s prose:
Admittedly any such dyadic comparison risks oversimplifying the menu of eligible strategies, but the risk is lessened when one bears in mind that to envisage novels as potential GANs is necessarily to conceive them as belonging to more extensive domains of narrative practice that draw on repertoires of tropes and recipes for encapsulating nationness of the kinds sketched briefly in the Introductionâ€”such that you canâ€™t fully grasp whatâ€™s at stake in any one possible GAN without imagining the individual work in multiple conversations with many others, and not just U.S. literature either.
Thatâ€™s one sentence. There is an idea in there somewhere, but it canâ€™t escape the proseâ€”the Byzantine syntax and Latinate diction, the rhetorical falls and grammatical stumbles. Schmidtâ€™s smooth sentences urge us ever onward. Buellâ€™s, like boulders, say stop, go back.
The truth is that by academic standards, Buellâ€™s writing isnâ€™t especially badâ€”which makes him, as an instance, even worse. By the same token, he isnâ€™t noxiously ideological in the current style, isnâ€™t an â€œ-istâ€ with an ax to grind or swingâ€”all the more reason to deplore how thoroughly (it seems, reflexively) his book bespeaks the reigning ideologies. Buell, whose careful terror seems to be the possibility of saying something politically incorrectâ€”the book does so much posturing, you think itâ€™s going to throw its back outâ€”appears to have absorbed every piety in the contemporary critical hymnal. You can see him fairly bowing to them in his introduction, as if by way of ritual preparation. There they are, propitiated one by oneâ€”Ethnicity, Globalism, Anti-Canonicity, Anti-Essentialismâ€”like idols in the corners of a temple.
The frame of mind controls the readings. Novels arenâ€™t stories, for Buell, works of invention with their own disparate purposes and idiosyncratic ends. Theyâ€™re â€œinterventionsâ€ into this or that political debateâ€”usually, of course, concerning gender, race, or class, as if everyone in history had the same priorities as the English professors of 2014. Nearly every book is scored against todayâ€™s approved enlightened norms. Gone With the Wind loses points for â€œcontainingâ€ Scarlett and embodying an â€œatavistic conception of human rightsâ€ but wins a few back for being â€œeven more transnationally attuned than Absalom,â€ exhibiting â€œmaverick tendencies in some respects as pronounced as Faulknerâ€™s,â€ and engaging in â€œan act of feminist exorcism that Absalom canâ€™t imagine.â€ Go team!
In the case of Uncle Tomâ€™s Cabinâ€”a book that makes this kind of reading sweat, being heroically progressive by the standards of its day but embarrassing by oursâ€”pages are spent parsing its exact degree of virtue. Witnesses are called:
Here, as critic Lori Merish delicately puts it, Stowe â€œfails to imagine African Americans as full participant citizens in an American democracy.â€ George Harrisâ€™s grand design to Christianize Africa looks suspiciously imperialistic to boot, veering Stoweâ€™s antislavery critique in the direction of what Amy Kaplan trenchantly calls â€œmanifest domesticity.â€
I feel as if weâ€™re back in Salem. Maybe he should have just thrown the book in the water to see if it would float. Buell is a person, one should say, who uses terms like cracker, redneck, and white trash without self-consciousness or irony, which makes his moral teleology all the more repulsiveâ€”his assumption (and itâ€™s hardly his alone) that all of history has been leading up to the exalted ethical state of the contemporary liberal class.
The one kind of standard that Buell will not permit himself is an aesthetic one. Like many academics now, heâ€™d rather cut his tongue out than admit in public that he thinks a book is good or bad.
15 Jul 2014